MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 8 comments

8 Responses to How Would Universal Background Checks Be Enforced?

I don’t see how one can logically square an individual’s constitutional right with a prior restraint of it requiring governmental permission. That implies that rights are no longer intrinsic, but merely privileges that might be granted.

RinTX has found the petard on which to hoist the gun lobby. Mr. La Pierre, do you favor permitting illegal aliens to freely purchase weapons at gun shows and from private collectors, or do you favor measures to ensure that only citizens — i.e., “the people” — keep and bear arms in this country? Shouldn’t we crack down on rampant gun fraud?

Some years back the Federal government passed the Combat Methamphetamine Act, which placed cold pills containing pseudoephedrine behind the counter. Purchasers had to produce a photo ID and sign into a log book. This national system was enormously successful at curtailing domestic production of the drug, resulting in a precipitous year-over-year decline in toxic meth lab busts: from 13,000 in 2005 to 8,200 in 2006 (when the act was passed) to 6,100 in 2006.

I’m just saying, if they could do it for cold pills, they could certainly do it for guns or ammunition.

Fran: If I’m not mistaken the Supreme Court has never categorically banned the idea that the government can indeed impose a prior restraint on some speech even. Instead it’s just placed the bar the gov’t has to jump in such cases very very high.

And that’s consistent with most and indeed probably all of the Court’s interpretations of your constitutional rights. Whether it’s a sliding scale of protection, or so-called “reasonable restrictions” (such as “time and place” with free speech), or the idea that only *some* of something is covered by a right that appears otherwise broad or categorical or whatever, except for Justice Black I don’t know that you can even find any other Supreme Court Justice who was the kind of literal absolutist you suggest you support.

And certainly the Court’s jurisprudence not only doesn’t generally follow any literal, absolutist line, but indeed has categorically rejected that view of the Bill of Rights time and time again, going back decades and decades.

“if [the gov’t] could do it for cold pills [curtail certain cold pills] they could certainly do it for guns or ammunition.”

And if we can do if for those things, we can do it for the illegal employment of illegal immigrants, which of course would not only curtail any further such immigration, but no doubt cause huge numbers of the already existing to self-deport.

No no no! though we’re told. We can’t *possibly* think of doing to non-law-abiding non-citizens what we casually think of doing to law-abiding citizens.